[EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

[David L Wetzell]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40%
>>>>>> cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would
>>>>>> have worked themselves out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How? By people returning to lesser-evil voting, but possibly between
>>>>> progressives and democrats? That's not a solution in my book.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto
>>>> center.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're happy with the Democrat/Republican choice?
>>>
>>
>> No, I believe it's alright to have two major parties so long as the
>> duopoly is contested
>>
>
> How would a post-Kiss Burlington duopoly be contested?
>

dlw: IDK and I don't need to know.  The ways new parties can be created or
old parties readjusted are too many.

>
>
>> and both major parties must regularly reposition themselves around the de
>> facto center,
>>
>
> That only works for issues that make it onto the agenda; and it works as
> well for D/R on a national scale as it would for D/P on a Burlington scale.
> (Yes, D/P would be a better local fit for Burlington than D/R; but not
> better than D/R is nationally.)
>

dlw: More such issues wd make it onto the agenda more often if P's cd be
among the top 2 in "more local" elections at the nationwide level.

>
> To my view, this is unacceptably bad.
>

dlw: You're failing to take into account how much of the dysfunctional
behavior of the Ds and Rs is due to their mutual conflicting desire to get
permanent majorities over the other.  If you take this possibility away,
you change their incentives to make cooperating more useful.

Both major parties can be reincarnated from their current states.
Once, we start balancing our use of single-winner and multi-winner
elections, things'll start changing more often and we won't get stuck in a
rut like the US has been for 40 so years due to cultural wars wedge
issues(easier to reframe effectively when third party outsiders are given
more voice) and the increased agressiveness of $peech (which is easy when
there are so few competitive elections and third parties are not given a
constructive role by the use of FPTP for almost all elections) and low
voter turnout (also known to be increased by PR, it's not known whether
alts to IRV will have a comparable effect).

dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111122/8b93a21b/attachment-0004.htm>